Methods, systems, and computer readable media for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic

ABSTRACT

Methods, systems, and computer readable media for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic are disclosed. According to one method, the method occurs at an Internet protocol (IP) traffic simulator having a first communications interface and a second communications interface. The method includes sending, by the first communications interface, a plurality of benign data packets to a security device, wherein the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets. The method also includes receiving, by the second communications interface, zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets via the security device. The method further includes determining, using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The subject matter described herein relates to mobile network equipment testing. More specifically, the subject matter relates to methods, systems, and computer readable media for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic.

BACKGROUND

Security devices may be used for protecting data and/or networks. For example, network-based intrusion prevention systems (IPSs) are inline security devices designed to monitor network traffic for malicious traffic such as exploits targeting published vulnerabilities on client and server applications. An IPS generally inspects, identifies, logs, and attempts to block malicious traffic while allowing legitimate or benign traffic to flow between trusted and untrusted network segments. However, incorrect signatures (e.g., IPS filters) defined for an IPS to detect and block traffic considered malicious can lead to incorrectly blocking benign traffic, which can negatively impact end users.

Data leakage prevention systems (DLPSs) are another type of security device. A DLPS is designed to prevent confidential information from being leaked, e.g., to an unapproved or untrusted entity or network. A DLPS may use signatures or filters to scan and determine whether outgoing information is confidential. If outgoing information is confidential and destined for untrusted entity, the DLPS may prevent the transfer. However, if the outgoing information is non-confidential or the recipient or destination is trusted, the DLPS may allow the transfer. To prevent excessive and unnecessary communications interruptions, it is important that the DLPS correctly identifies confidential and non-confidential information.

Accordingly, in light of these difficulties, a need exists for methods, systems, and computer readable media for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic.

SUMMARY

Methods, systems, and computer readable media for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic are disclosed. According to one method, the method occurs at an Internet protocol (IP) traffic simulator having a first communications interface and a second communications interface. The method includes sending, by the first communications interface, a plurality of benign data packets to a security device, wherein the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets. The method also includes receiving, by the second communications interface, zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets via the security device. The method further includes determining, using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device.

According to one system for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic, the system includes an Internet protocol (IP) traffic simulator. The (IP) traffic simulator includes a first communications interface configured to send a plurality of benign data packets to a security device, wherein the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets. The (IP) traffic simulator also includes a second communications interface configured to receive zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets via the security device. The (IP) traffic simulator further includes a detection accuracy module (DAM) configured to determine, using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device.

The subject matter described herein may be implemented in software in combination with hardware and/or firmware. For example, the subject matter described herein may be implemented in software executed by a processor (e.g., a hardware-based processor). In one exemplary implementation, the subject matter described herein may be implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor of a computer control the computer to perform steps. Exemplary computer readable media suitable for implementing the subject matter described herein include non-transitory devices, such as disk memory devices, chip memory devices, programmable logic devices, such as field programmable gate arrays, and application specific integrated circuits. In addition, a computer readable medium that implements the subject matter described herein may be located on a single device or computing platform or may be distributed across multiple devices or computing platforms.

As used herein, the term “node” refers to a physical computing platform including one or more processors and memory.

As used herein, the terms “function” or “module” refer to software in combination with hardware and/or firmware for implementing features described herein. In some embodiments, a module may include a field-programmable gateway array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a processor.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The subject matter described herein will now be explained with reference to the accompanying drawings of which:

FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an IP traffic simulator according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein;

FIG. 2 is diagram illustrating a first set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein;

FIG. 3 is diagram illustrating a second set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein;

FIG. 4 is diagram illustrating a third set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein;

FIGS. 5A and 5B are portions of a diagram illustrating a fourth set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein; and

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary process for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The subject matter described herein discloses methods, systems, and computer readable media for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic. When testing a security device, it may be desirable to test the response of the security and its signatures (e.g., filters) to benign or baseline traffic. For example, an IP traffic simulator may surround an IPS, e.g., the IP traffic simulator may send packets to the IPS via a public network interface and receive the packets from the IPS via a private network interface. The IP traffic simulator may monitor how the IPS handles benign traffic and compute one or more detection accuracy metrics, such as a percentage of benign traffic allowed to pass through the IPS, e.g., (number of benign flows (e.g., one or more related data packets) sent−number of benign flows blocked)/number of benign flows sent.

Conventional testing platforms measure security effectiveness by recreating the communication between an attacker and a target system according to specific traffic patterns that have been identified and/or classified as malicious, e.g., data or exploits that can trigger vulnerabilities in the target system. While security effectiveness is useful for determining how well a security prevents malicious traffic from affecting a target system, additional testing is needed for measuring detection accuracy, e.g., false positives or determining how much benign traffic is incorrectly identified as malicious.

Advantageously, aspects of the present subject matter herein are directed to measuring detection accuracy using benign traffic that is very similar in content and or form to malicious traffic. Moreover, in some embodiments, the benign traffic is provided by a security analysis entity, such as TELUS® Security Labs. By measuring detection accuracy using benign or baseline traffic, an IP traffic simulator or a testing platform may identify and/or analyze false positives associated with security filters and/or signatures.

FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an IP traffic simulator 100 according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein. IP traffic simulator 100 may be any suitable entity for receiving, processing, and/or generating various data, including IP data packets, voice over IP (VoIP) packets, and/or HTTP packets. For example, IP traffic simulator 100 may include a testing platform or a module for retrieving stored benign data packets from a database, sending the data packets to a security device, receiving the data packets from the security device, and/or analyzing statistics about the benign data packets. Exemplary packets sent, received, processed, or generated by IP traffic simulator 100 may include real time streaming protocol (RTSP) packets, real time protocol (RTP) packets, real time control protocol (RTCP) packets, user datagram protocol (UDP) packets, transport control protocol (TCP) packets, Ethernet packets, IP packets, and/or other packets.

IP traffic simulator 100 may communicate with and/or test various security devices, such as IPS 110 and a data leakage prevention system (DLPS). IPS 110 may be any suitable entity (e.g., a network device) for preventing malicious data packets or traffic from reaching a protected entity (e.g., a target system or network). IPS 110 may include ingress communications interface 112, an IPS filter 114, and an egress communications interface 116. Communications interfaces 112 and 116 may represent suitable entities for communicating with one or more nodes, e.g., for receiving or sending HTTP traffic. Communications interfaces 112 and 116 may receive or provide data packets to and/or from one or more modules.

In some embodiments, communications interface 112 may be associated with a public network and/or one or more IP addresses. Communications interface 112 may receive data traffic from various sources, including untrusted network segments or nodes. In some embodiments, communications interface 116 may be associated with a private network and/or one or more different IP address. Communications interface 116 may send or forward certain data packets (e.g., data packets identified as benign) toward an intended destination within a private or trusted network segment.

In some embodiments, multiple IP traffic simulators 100 may be used to test or analyze aspects of a security device. For example, a first IP traffic simulator 100 may send a plurality of benign flows via one or more communications interfaces to a security device and a second IP traffic simulator 100 may receive zero or more of the plurality of benign flows that pass through the security device via one or more communications interfaces. The second IP traffic simulator or another module or node may analyze statistics associated with the benign flows and determine various metrics.

IPS 110 may be configured to use IPS filter 114 (e.g., snort rules or signatures) to identify malicious traffic, e.g., one or more packets containing data that may trigger system vulnerabilities or flaws, and perform mitigation actions.

IPS filter 114 may include one or more signatures or snort rules. A signature may be a file, code, or data for identifying traffic as malicious based on distinctive characteristics associated with malicious traffic. A snort rule may be a file, code, or data for identifying traffic as malicious based on the actual vulnerability and not distinct characteristics of malicious traffic. After identifying malicious traffic, IPS 110 may be configured to perform various mitigation actions, such as flag traffic, alert a user, or block malicious traffic from reaching its intended destination. IPS may be configured to allow other traffic (e.g., non-malicious or benign traffic) to reach its intended destination. While FIG. 1 depicts IPS 110, it will be appreciated that various security devices may be tested using baseline or benign traffic and may measure various detection accuracy metrics. For example, a DLPS may be tested using data packets containing only non-confidential information (e.g., benign data packets in this context) for measuring a detection accuracy metric associated with a DLPS filter.

IP traffic simulator 100 may include an egress communications interface 102, a detection accuracy module (DAM) 104, a benign traffic database 106, and an ingress communications interface 108. Communications interfaces 102 and 108 may represent suitable entities for communicating with one or more nodes, e.g., for receiving or sending HTTP traffic. Communications interfaces 102 and 108 may receive or provide data packets to and/or from one or more modules.

In some embodiments, communications interface 102 may be associated with a public network and/or one or more IP addresses and communications interface 108 may be associated with a private network and/or one or more different IP address. For example, communications interface 102 may be configured to send IP data packets to a public IP address via communication interface 112 at IPS 110 and communications interface 108 may be configured to receive IP data packets from a public IP address via communication interface 116 at IPS 110. In this example, communications interface 108 may use a private IP address so that it appears to IPS 110 as a destination node within a private or secure network segment.

In some embodiments, communications interface 102 and 108 may be co-located or integrated. For example, communications interface 102 and 108 may be part of another communications interface.

DAM 104 may be any suitable entity (e.g., a circuit or one or more processors executing software) for measuring detection accuracy associated with a security device. DAM 104 may be configured to receive, send, retrieve, and/or generate various data packets. DAM 104 may receive and/or store a collection of captures (e.g., PCAP files) describing IP communications between attackers and a vulnerable targets. Malicious traffic captures may include one or more UDP, TCP or mixed flows (e.g., one or more data packets), where at least one packet includes malicious payload. DAM 104 may receive and/or store a collection of baseline or benign traffic captures. Benign captures may include one or more UDP, TCP, or mixed flows that are similar in content and appearance to malicious traffic, but do not include exploits or other malicious code, e.g., information that triggers flaws or vulnerabilities in a target system and malicious data packets may be packets that contain exploits or similar data. Both types of captures may be used to in testing the detection and/or prevention mechanisms of a security device. For example, benign traffic captures may be used to measure detection accuracy, e.g., how much benign traffic is being incorrectly identified as malicious. Malicious traffic captures may be used to measure security effectiveness, e.g., how much malicious traffic is being correctly identified as malicious.

In some embodiments, DAM 104 may retrieve captures or multiple data packets from a security analysis entity. The data packets may include malicious data packets containing exploit code (e.g., data for exploiting or triggering a vulnerability) and may also include baseline or benign data packets. The benign data packets may be similar to the malicious data packets, such as in format, in content, or in other ways. In another example, DAM 104 may generate benign data packets based on malicious data packets. The generated benign data packets may be engineered to have distinct characteristics. In some embodiments, benign traffic having distinct characteristics may be useful in analyzing detection accuracy associated with filter 114, e.g., useful in determining which characteristics trigger incorrect identification (e.g., a false positive).

In some embodiments, where a security device includes IPS 110, benign data packets may be packets that do not contain exploit code. In such embodiments, the benign data packets may be similar in appearance and/or content to malicious data packets. For example, benign data packets may include similar data to exploit code in format, but that do not exploit a software vulnerability. In another example, benign data packets may generate similar hash values or be associated with digital signatures that are similar to those of malicious data packets.

In some embodiments, where a security device includes a DLPS, benign data packets may contain confidential information (e.g., only contains non-confidential information) and malicious data packets may contain confidential information. In such embodiments, the benign data packets may be similar in appearance and/or content to malicious data. For example, benign data packets may include similar data to confidential information, such as words that are similar to keywords indicative of confidential information. In another example, benign data packets may generate similar hash values or be associated with digital signatures that are similar to those of malicious data packets.

DAM 104 may be configured to send benign data packets to a security device, such as IPS 110 or a DLPS, via communications interface 102. For example, DAM 104 may retrieve benign data packets from memory, may address the data packets such that the data packets are routed back to IP traffic simulator 100 (e.g., via ingress communications interface 108), and may send the packets to the security device. The security device may apply filter 114 and route appropriate packets (e.g., packets identified as benign) back to IP traffic simulator via communications interface 108.

DAM 104 may be configured to receive data packets (e.g., returned via IPS 110 and communications interface 108) and/or statistics associated with the data packets. DAM 104 may analyze received benign data packet (e.g., via IPS 110 or another security device) and/or derive statistics associated with the received benign data packets.

In some embodiments, DAM 104 may compute one or more metrics based on received data packets and/or related statistics. Metrics may be represented by various indicators, including ranges, ratings, colors, or fractions. For example, DAM 104 may compute a detection accuracy percentage. The percentage may be computed by dividing a number of benign data packets received via IPS 110 by a number of benign data packets sent to IPS 110.

In some embodiments, DAM 104 may use one or more counters for maintaining and/or managing statistics associated with testing a security device. For example, DAM 104 may maintain an attempted packet counter, a non-successful packet counter, and a successful packet counter. The attempted packet counter may be incremented upon successful transmission of a benign data packet (e.g., from a capture). The successful packet counter may be incremented upon successful receipt of a packet sent to a security device and returned. The non-successful packet counter may be incremented upon encountering a mismatch (e.g., when a packet is blocked or not returned to IP traffic simulator 100). For example, if a TCP packet is sent to IPS 110, a mismatch may refer to not receiving the same TCP payload (ignoring TCP header changes) via communications interface 108. In a second example involving an IP packet, a mismatch may be determined based on IP header and IP payload. In some embodiments, connections that have packet loss or receive a resend message on either communications interface 102 or communications interface 108 may be considered non-successful.

In some embodiments, statistics associated with flows or vulnerabilities may be maintained or managed. For example, DAM 104 may maintain an attempted benign traffic flow counter, a non-successful benign traffic flow counter, and a successful benign traffic flow counter. In this example, counters may be incremented based on whether a particular flow or substantial portion therein is sent, blocked, or returned.

In some embodiments, where a plurality of benign data packets are similar to a malicious data packet and each of the plurality of benign data packets have distinct characteristics, DAM 104 may determine, based on which of the plurality of benign data packets were blocked by IPS 110, characteristics that trigger filter 114 to perform block action, alerts, or otherwise incorrectly identify the benign data packets as malicious.

DAM 104 may be configured to generate a report indicating one or more detection accuracy metrics. In some embodiments, a report may detection accuracy metrics for various types of benign data packets. For example, a generated report may indicate packets having characteristic “X” are associated with detection accuracy rate of 90%, packets having characteristic “Y” are associated with detection accuracy rate of 99%, and packets having characteristics “Y” and “X” are associated with a detection accuracy rate of 75%. In such embodiments, DAM 104, another module and/or a user may utilize reports to identify a portion of filter 114 that need further testing or may need to be modified.

DAM 104 may be configured to store and/or retrieve various captures, flows, and/or data packets in memory. For example, DAM 104 may store benign data packets or baseline traffic in benign traffic database 106. During testing, DAM 104 may be configured to retrieve benign data packets from benign traffic database 106. Database 106 may be any suitable entity (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) for storing benign data packets and/or other data. In some embodiments, database 106 may be co-located or integrated with DAM 104. In some embodiments, database 106 may be located on a node, a processor, or a memory that is distinct or separate from DAM 104.

FIG. 2 is diagram illustrating a first set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein. In some embodiments, exploit code 200 may be a payload portion stored in one or malicious data packets, such as an HTTP packet, a TCP packet, IP packet, or an Ethernet packet. In some embodiments, benign code 202 may be a payload portion stored in one or more benign data packets.

Referring to FIG. 2, exploit code 200 represents data, e.g., hypertext markup language (HTML), cascading style sheets (CSS), and/or JavaScript code, that when executed by a target system or software therein exploits or uses a vulnerability to cause or perform unwanted actions. Exploit code 200 may be an example of an exploit known as CVE-2010-0490 and may involve an uninitialized memory corruption vulnerability. For example, exploit code 200 may not destroy an object by including an end tag (code portion 204 of benign code 202). Exploit code 200 may be used to exploit a flaw in how some versions of web browsers, such as Internet Explorer® (IE), handle objects in memory. By accessing an object that is not destroyed, memory corruption may occur which could allow a remote user to run arbitrary code.

Benign code 202 may be substantially similar in content to exploit code 200. Benign code 202 may include a unique code portion 204 at line 10. Code portion 204 may include an end tag for an object referenced in line 5. By including a start tag and end tag for an object, benign code 202 may properly initialize and destroy the object and, as such, may not trigger or exploit a software vulnerability.

In some embodiments, benign code 202 may be generated as baseline traffic (e.g., traffic that does not include a particular exploit and should not be identified as malicious) that is associated with exploit code 200 and may contain similar content as exploit code.

FIG. 3 is diagram illustrating a second set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein. In some embodiments, exploit code 300 may be a payload portion stored in one or malicious data packets, such as an HTTP packet, a TCP packet, IP packet, or an Ethernet packet. In some embodiments, benign code 302 may be a payload portion stored in one or more benign data packets.

Referring to FIG. 3, exploit code 300 represents data that when executed by a target system or software therein exploits or uses a vulnerability to cause or perform unwanted actions. Exploit code 300 may be an example of an exploit known as CVE-2012-0011 and may involve an HTML layout remote code execution vulnerability. For example, exploit code 300 may involve a malformed object in code portion 304. Code portion 304 may include an object initialization of nonexistent “garbage” type, where the object has a fixed position. Exploit code 300 may be used to exploit a flaw in how some versions of IE handle objects in memory. By accessing a malformed object, memory corruption may occur which could allow a remote user to run arbitrary code.

Benign code 302 may be substantially similar in content to exploit code 300. Benign code 302 may include an object initialization of paragraph (“p”) type. A paragraph object may be proper type and, as such, referencing the paragraph object in benign code 302 (e.g., lines 17 and 18 of benign code 302) may not exploit a software vulnerability.

FIG. 4 is diagram illustrating a third set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein. In some embodiments, exploit code 400 may be a payload portion stored in one or malicious data packets, such as an HTTP packet, a TCP packet, IP packet, or an Ethernet packet. In some embodiments, benign code 402 may be a payload portion stored in one or more benign data packets.

Referring to FIG. 4, exploit code 400 represents data that when executed by a target system or software therein exploits or uses a vulnerability to cause or perform unwanted actions. Exploit code 400 may be an example of an exploit known as CVE-2011-2000 and may involve a body element remote code execution vulnerability. For example, exploit code 400 may create various body elements (e.g., lines 10-13 of exploit code 400), append elements to other elements (e.g., lines 14-16 of exploit code 400), and delete attributes associated with an element (e.g., line 17 of exploit code 400. Code portion 404 may include a reference to a deleted body element, e.g., body element ‘d.’ Exploit code 400 may be used to exploit a flaw in how some versions of IE handle objects in memory. By accessing a deleted body element, memory corruption may occur which could allow a remote user to run arbitrary code.

Benign code 402 may be substantially similar in content to exploit code 400. Benign code 402 may avoid referencing or accessing a deleted body element. By not accessing a deleted body element, benign code 402 may not trigger or exploit a software vulnerability.

FIGS. 5A and 5B are portions of a diagram illustrating a fourth set of exemplary exploit code and benign code according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein. FIG. 5A includes exploit code 500. In some embodiments, exploit code 500 may be a payload portion stored in one or malicious data packets, such as an HTTP packet, a TCP packet, IP packet, or an Ethernet packet. In some embodiments, benign code 502 may be a payload portion stored in one or more benign data packets.

Referring to FIG. 5A, exploit code 500 represents data that when executed by a target system or software therein exploits or uses a vulnerability to cause or perform unwanted actions. Exploit code 500 may be an example of an exploit known as CVE-2006-3869 and may involve a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability. For example, exploit code 500 may include code portion 504. Code portion 504 may include a get command followed by a long string of characters appearing to be an URL. Code portion 504 may trigger a heap overflow in some versions of IE when a long uniform resource locator (URL) is processed on a website that uses HTTP 1.1 compression or where a web server response indicates GZIP or DEFLATE encoding. By attempting to process a long URL associated with a website or web server having certain characteristics, a buffer overflow may occur which could allow a remote user to run arbitrary code.

FIG. 5B includes benign code 502. In some embodiments, benign code 502 may be substantially similar in content to exploit code 500. Benign code 502 may also include a get command but may be followed by a valid URL (e.g., a URL that is does exceed a certain number of characters in length). As such, executing benign code 502 may not exploit a software vulnerability.

While FIGS. 2-5 depict web browser vulnerabilities, it will be appreciated that various programming languages and/or various software vulnerabilities may be used to exploit target systems and, as such, various information may be generated and communicated in various data packets or flows to security devices by modules or nodes in accordance with subject matter described herein.

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary process for balancing incoming connections according to an embodiment of the subject matter described herein. In some embodiments, the exemplary process described herein, or portions thereof, may be performed by IP traffic simulator 100, DAM 104, a database 106, a processor, and/or another node or module.

In step 600, a plurality of benign data packets may be sent by a first communications interface to a security device. The plurality of benign data packets may be engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets. For example, IP traffic simulator 100 may retrieve benign code 202 or similar data and send the data to IPS 110 via communications interface 102. The data may be stored in payload of data packets, where the header includes address identifiers that are associated with two IP addresses, ports, or communications interfaces associated with the testing platform, e.g., IP traffic simulator 100.

In some embodiments, the first communications interface is associated with a first IP address and the second communications interface is associated with a second IP address. For example, communications interface 102 may be associated with a public IP address and communications interface 108 may be associated with a private IP address.

In step 602, zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets may be received by a second communication interface. The received packets may pass through the security device. For example, after receiving some data packets from IP traffic simulator 100, IPS 110 may inspect or otherwise determine (e.g., using filter 114) whether the data packets should be allowed to reach their intended destination. If the data packet are determined to be allowable (e.g., benign), the data packets may be sent to IP traffic simulator 100 via communications interface 108.

In step 604, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device may be determined using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets. For example, a rating (e.g., a number between 1 and 5) may be generated that indicates how accurate a security device or filter therein is at correctly identifying benign data packets or benign flows. In another example, a detection accuracy metric may be a fraction indicated by the number of benign data packets correctly identified over the number of benign data packet sent or tested.

In some embodiments, determining the detection accuracy metric may include dividing a number of benign data packets returned to the IP traffic simulator via the security device by a number of benign data packets sent by the IP traffic simulator to the security device.

In some embodiments, the detection accuracy metric may be an integer, a percentage, a probability, a code, a color, a value, or a range of values.

In some embodiments, the plurality of benign data packets may be provided by a security analysis entity.

In some embodiments, each of the plurality of benign data packets may be engineered to have distinct characteristics. For example, an exploit may involve memory corruption when handling particular objects created by a web browser when loading a webpage. Each benign data packet may include code instruction for initializing different objects or for accessing different attributes associated with the objects. By testing different data packets that are similar to the exploit, the testing platform may determine whether certain characteristics are problematic for a given filter 114 and may report detection accuracy metrics associated with each characteristic or type of data packet.

In some embodiments, a testing platform may identify, using the distinct characteristics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a portion of a first packet of the plurality of benign data packets that causes the security device to block the first packet.

In some embodiments, the security device may be an IPS or a DLPS. For example, when testing a DLPS, IP traffic simulator 100 may send benign data packets that contain or request non-confidential information and malicious data packets that contain or request confidential information. In another example, when testing IPS 110, IP traffic simulator 100 may send benign data packets that do not contain data for triggering a vulnerability in a target system and malicious data packets that contain data for triggering a vulnerability in a target system.

It will be understood that various details of the subject matter described herein may be changed without departing from the scope of the subject matter described herein. Furthermore, the foregoing description is for the purpose of illustration only, and not for the purpose of limitation, as the subject matter described herein is defined by the claims as set forth hereinafter. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic, the method comprising: at an Internet protocol (IP) traffic simulator having a first communications interface and a second communications interface: sending, by the first communications interface, a plurality of benign data packets to a security device, wherein the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets; receiving, by the second communications interface, zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets via the security device; and determining, using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the security device is an intrusion prevention system or a data leakage prevention system.
 3. The method of claim 1 wherein the benign data packets contain non-confidential information and the one or more malicious data packets contain confidential information.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more malicious data packets include data for triggering a vulnerability in a target system.
 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets includes one or more packet counters for determining a number of benign data packets sent to the security device, received via the security device, or blocked by the security device.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the detection accuracy metric includes dividing a number of benign data packets returned to the IP traffic simulator via the security device by a number of benign data packets sent by the IP traffic simulator to the security device.
 7. The method of claim 1 wherein the detection accuracy metric comprises one of an integer, a percentage, a probability, a code, a color, a value, or a range of values.
 8. The method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of benign data packets is provided by a security analysis entity.
 9. The method of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to have distinct characteristics.
 10. The method of claim 6 comprising identifying, using the distinct characteristics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a portion of a first packet of the plurality of benign data packets that causes the security device to block the first packet.
 11. The method of claim 1 wherein the first communications interface is associated with a first IP address and the second communications interface is associated with a second IP address.
 12. A system for measuring detection accuracy of a security device using benign traffic, the system comprising: an Internet protocol (IP) traffic simulator, the IP traffic simulator comprising: a first communications interface configured to send a plurality of benign data packets to a security device, wherein the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets; a second communications interface configured to receive zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets via the security device; and a detection accuracy module (DAM) configured to determine, using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device.
 13. The system of claim 12 wherein the security device is an intrusion prevention system or a data leakage prevention system.
 14. The system of claim 12 wherein the benign data packets contain non-confidential information and the one or more malicious data packets contain confidential information.
 15. The system of claim 12 wherein the one or more malicious data packets include data for triggering a vulnerability in a target system.
 16. The system of claim 12 wherein the statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets includes one or more packet counters for determining a number of benign data packets sent to the security device, received via the security device, or blocked by the security device.
 17. The system of claim 12 wherein the DAM is configured to determine the detection accuracy metric by dividing a number of benign data packets returned to the IP traffic simulator via the security device by a number of benign data packets sent by the IP traffic simulator to the security device.
 18. The system of claim 12 wherein the detection accuracy metric comprises one of an integer, a percentage, a probability, a code, a color, a value, or a range of values.
 19. The system of claim 12 wherein the plurality of benign data packets is provided by a security analysis entity.
 20. The system of claim 12 wherein the plurality of benign data packets is stored in a database.
 21. The system of claim 12 wherein each of the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to have distinct characteristics.
 22. The system of claim 21 comprising the DAM is configured to identify, using the distinct characteristics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a portion of a first packet of the plurality of benign data packets that causes the security device to block the first packet.
 23. The system of claim 12 wherein the first communications interface is associated with a first IP address and the second communications interface is associated with a second IP address.
 24. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions embodied in a computer readable medium that when executed by a processor of a computer control the computer to perform steps comprising: at an Internet protocol (IP) traffic simulator having a first communications interface and a second communications interface: sending, by the first communications interface, a plurality of benign data packets to a security device, wherein the plurality of benign data packets is engineered to be similar to one or more malicious data packets; receiving, by the second communications interface, zero or more of the plurality of benign data packets via the security device; and determining, using statistics associated with the plurality of benign data packets, a detection accuracy metric associated with the security device. 